The Garden City

Movement
5. September 2014 - Eli Støa
Dalen hageby, Trondheim. Foto: Tore Brantenberg
 Ebenezer Howard:
”Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path
to Real Reform (1898)

”Town and country must be

married, and out of this joyous
union will spring a new hope, a
new life, a new civilization” (p.10)
 ”A house with a feeling”
Andrew Jackson Downing, USA 1850

To the right: Plan of Riverside, Illinois, 1869

(Ill: Fishman, 1987)
 Other inspirations

New Lanark, Scotland (1786) built for cotton mill workers by David Dale
and developed further by his son-in-law Robert Owen – Welsh philantropist
and social reformer
Other inspirations

Port Sunlight, by Lever (Liverpool,

1888) , built for workers at Sunlight
Soap factory

Bournville , Birmingham (1893-

1900), built for workers at Cadbury
chocolate factory
 The main idea
To unite town and country in a new synthesis, as a reaction
towards the muserable housing conditions for the working class in
the cities (Brantenberg, 2002)

Letchworth Garden City, ca. 1905 Foto: Miller, 1989

 The main idea
”..all the advantages of the most energetic and active town life,
and all the beauty and delight of the country may be secured in
combination” (Howard, 1945:45-46).

Letchworth Garden City, ca. 1905 Foto: Miller, 1989

 Ebenezer Howard:
”Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path
to Real Reform (1898)

”But neither the Town magnet nor the Country

magnet represent the full plan and purpose of
nature. Human society and the beauty of
nature are meant to be enjoyed together. The
two magnets must be made one” (p.9)
Ideological background
The villa suburbs of the bourgeois
(from the 1700s)
– Separation between work and housing

– High ”status” moved from the city

centre to the suburbs
• ‘Family’ got a new meaning
• Class antagonism

– ”The genuine suburban landscape”

• Housing in a park like environment (open and
deep front gardens)
• Asymmetry and formal diversity
• Picturesque , emotional, eclectic aesthetics
(Fishman, 1987:145)
Ebenezer Howard: ”Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path
to Real Reform” (1898)

Physical principles

– Satellites in the outskirts of existing cities

– Surrounded by farm land
– Small industries
– Maximum ca. 30.000 habitants
– Divided into neighborhoods with approx.
6000 inhabitants
Ebenezer Howard: ”Tomorrow: A Peaceful
Path to Real Reform” (1898)

Organizational / financial principles:

• Garden City companies were established by help of private investors.

• ‘Voluntary socialism’: Increased values returned to the community
• Local self goverment (”Social city”)

”..by buying land at depressed agricultural prices, the

communiuty could create its own urban land values and use
them to finance a local welfare state” (Hall & Ward, 1998)
 Examples

• Letchworth Garden City, England (1903-1919)

• Sunnyside Gardens, New York (1924-1928)

• Ullevål Hageby, Oslo (1915-22)

• Lille Tøyen, Oslo (1916-22)

• Øvre Rosenborg (1922-23)

Letchworth Garden City
(1903-1919), England
Architects: Barry Parker / Raymond
Unwin

Foto: Miller, 1989

 Letchworth Garden City (1903-1919), England
Architects: Barry Parker / Raymond Unwin

•Hertfordshire 56 km north of London

• Combination of monumental axis and winding roads
•Small scale housing boliger (terracced housing)
•Planned for ca. 35.000 inhabitants – reached 15.000 in 1938 and
32.000 in 1991
• Recreating the image of a picturesque English village with low
density
Letchworth: Architectural design

• Traditionalism: ’Vernacular
style’ (Arts & Crafts)
• Detaced and semi detached
houses
• Green streets
• Community centre, park:
”village green” and public
buildings
• Growing focus on new housing
requirments: sanitation
systems, ventilation, daylight
”Det var en nostalgisk drøm om en førindustriell verden, og da versjonen av hagebyen
senere ble gjennomført i Letchworth, ble den hensiktsmessig utfylt med Arts and
Craft- formspråket i Raymond Unwins arkitektur” (Brantenberg, 2002:26)

Foto: Miller, 1989

 Sunnyside Gardens, New York (1924-1928)
Arch: Henry Wright / Clarence Stein / Frederick Ackerman

Objective
•Reasonable and adequate housing for low income groups: ”Decent homes
for all”
•Cooperative models for ownership
•Demonstrate advantages with mass production of housing

Localisation
•Queens, 15 min with subway to
Manhatten
Sunnyside Gardens, New York (1924-1928)
Arch: Henry Wright / Clarence Stein / Frederick Ackerman

• Linear terracced housing and low apartmentbuildings

• 1202 standardised units
• Large urban quarters (90-100 units in each quarter)
• Community house
• Parking houses: carfree outdoor areas
• Combination of flat and gabled roofs
Sunnyside Gardens, New York (1924-1928)
Arch: Henry Wright / Clarence Stein / Frederick Ackerman
 Traditional and modern
elements
• identifiable housing units, well known /
traditional elements (porches, chimneys,
cornices, windows etc)

• Modern movement expressed in the overall

area plan, the inbuilt furnishing and functional
plan layout providing light and air
The Nordic version of the Garden city idea

«Own home» («egne-hjem»)

movement

– Decent and healthy houses for the working

class
– Small houses with private gardens – the best
for common people (”almuen”)
– Traditional housing from the countryside
transfered to the cities
– Modest public involvement – private
industrialist built the houses
The Nordic version of the Garden city idea

”På den ene side representerte de en anti-industriell reaksjon som knyttet det
selveide hjem til en konservativ eierfilosofi med røtter på landsbygda. På den
annen side var bevegelsen preget av et mer moderne, kollektivt og industrielt
tilpasset idégrunnlag”

“On one hand they represented an anti urban reaction with

connected the home to a conservative homeowner philosophy
with roots in the countryside. On the other hand, the
movement was marked by a more modern, collective
ideological foundation adapted to industrialism” (Annaniassen,
1991:57)
Arctanderbyen, Oslo 1911
Arkitekt: Morgenstierne & Eide
Foto og tegninger: T. Brantenberg, 2002
Ullevål Hageby, Oslo (1915-22)
Reguleringsplan: Oscar Hoff / Arkitekt: Harald Hals m.fl
Foto: Brantenberg, 2002
Foto: Brantenberg, 2002
Lille Tøyen Hageby (1916-22)
Ark: M.Poulsson
Lille Tøyen Hageby (1916-22)
Arkitekt: M. Poulsson
Lille Tøyen Hageby (1916-22)
Ark: M. Poulsson
Øvre Rosenborg, 1922-23
Ark: Klingenberg / Pedersen

Foto: Brantenberg, 2002

Øvre Rosenborg, 1922-23
Ark: Klingenberg / Pedersen
 What happened?
”Garden cities were (..) intended to become the
perfect antithesis of noisy, dirty industrial towns. Of
course, the principle was soon reduced to a planning
exercise..”
(Förster, 2006:12)

Foto: Miller, 1989

 What happened?
• Garden suburbs instead for garden cities
• For the middle class instead of the working
class

• Post war ”New towns”

• 60-70s low-dense movement in Scandinavia
• ”New urbanism”
• ”Sustainable housing”